Tony Marston wrote:
> It is a well-known fact that every database vendor includes their own
> "extensions" to the SQL standard simply because they want to offer more
> functionality to their users, and they can't wait for it to be formally
> documented in the standard.
On the other hand, it would be extremely stupid to include every syntax
for every little feature. If a feature is defined by the standard, then
it's quite clear which syntax to support. The fact that other vendor's
product use a different, non-standard syntax, does not mean that we
should too. In places where it's useful to extend the standard to offer
additional features, we do so. If it's only going to clutter our
namespace, we don't.
Also, PostgreSQL is extensible, which is a feature not all DBMSs offer.
So you can create your own CONCAT() function if you wanted.
Last but not least, We have a very loyal userbase; there's no need for
us to force "vendor lock-in" by supporting non-standard syntax for silly
features, like other vendors do.
--
Alvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile ICBM: S 39º 49' 17.7", W 73º 14' 26.8"
"Find a bug in a program, and fix it, and the program will work today.
Show the program how to find and fix a bug, and the program
will work forever" (Oliver Silfridge)
